@Sean Pitman: I ‘fundamentally’ disagree. The opinions of some do …

Comment on La Sierra University Hires Another Darwinist by Kat Stewart.

@Sean Pitman:
I ‘fundamentally’ disagree. The opinions of some do not equate to fact. Science, by definition, is a universally-testable, hypothesis-driven way of knowing…thus it is falsifiable. This is not something that falls within the boundaries of religion and thus I see no reconciliation. For example, maybe you can test and find evidence against evolution. Sure, why not. But that does not equate to evidence FOR an intelligent designer, nor will it ever. The distortion, and misinterpretation of science is common, so I do not fault you specifically for that. However, if we are arguing for teaching two very dichotomous realms at the same time, why not chemisty along side alchemy, magic with physics, astology and astronomy…I could go on but I wont. My point is this and this alone: you can teach religion, but as soon as you also decide to teach science, religion is left at the door. Maybe not as a personal philosophy, but definitely in the way you teach scientific methodology. And so I conclude, again, why should it matter WHO is teaching you science classes if there are science classes to begin with? Do secular universities screen out professors with faith – I doubt it or they would get sued.

Kat Stewart Also Commented

La Sierra University Hires Another Darwinist
@Sean Pitman: @Sean Pitman:
Sorry to burst your bubble but the idea that you can reconcile science and religion is ludicrous. To teach science ignoring evolution is not teach science at all! So I suggest that if this is indeed your stance, you make it clear that it has no bearing on who is doing the teaching but that it is the discipline itself that you take issue with. Once that is out in the open maybe we can have an “honest” discussion about what your intentions are. Then perhaps, there may be a way to have discourse about non-overlapping megisterial realms. If you were to have ‘faith’ in the believers of religion, then why deprive them of critical thinking and alternative views – or do you assume that the evil ways of science and fact are too coercive for intelligent, university attendees?